The biggest problem I have with the review is the reviewer's critique of Ken's mind. "Psychotic?" "Loony tune?" "Crazy?" Surely not. Maybe a bit eccentric, and we love him all the more for that, but not the others.
I think the critic is also mistaking homosexuality and lesbianism for deviancy. "Women in Love," "The Music Lovers," "The Boy Friend," "Valentino," may all involve elements of these, but I don't think they involve deviancy, sexual or otherwise.
On the other hand, "Lair of the White Worm" does contain elements of rape and pedophilia, which most of us would find as deviant.
As for what Ken wanted to achieve with the film, he wanted to make a camp comedy, which he seems to have done.
One can also ask the question, what did the critic want to achieve with the review? I'm not sure if even he has any idea.
The critic also seems to have little knowledge of British folk music, the song in the film was not written by Ken, as stated by the critic, but based on the old British folk song "The Lambton Worm."
"Typical and boring." Different strokes for different folks. I have never found Ken "typical," which is why I watch his films, and I certainly never have found this film to be "boring."
"Why is the villainess blue?" Really? Has the critic no understanding of the ancient history of Britain? The ancient pagans of Britain often painted themselves blue, and the villainess in this film dates back to that time.
The review also makes one wonder if the critic has seen either "The Devils" and/or "Women in Love," which are regarded as being Ken's two best films.
While even I agree this film is not as good as "Altered States," I can't see it as being as bad as the critic makes it out to be.
Nice try by the critic, but he should try again.
